Georgia Aquarium, Inc. v. Pritzker
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
134 F. Supp. 3d 1374 (2014)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Georgia Aquarium, Inc. (plaintiff) applied for a permit from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (defendant) to import 18 beluga whales for public display. The belugas had been captured in Russia by a professional team and were held in a dolphinarium awaiting export. The youngest belugas were approximately one-and-a-half years old at the time of capture, meaning that they were under the age of majority and still partially dependent on their mothers’ milk. NMFS denied Georgia Aquarium’s permit application, stating that Georgia Aquarium failed to meet the Marine Mammal Protection Act’s (MMPA) import permit criteria because (1) Georgia Aquarium failed to demonstrate that the import of the belugas would not have significant adverse effects on the beluga species in general or on the Russian beluga stock in particular; (2) Georgia Aquarium failed to prove that allowing the import would not cause an increase in takings of wild belugas beyond the 18 belugas authorized for import; and (3) Georgia Aquarium failed to prove that the captured belugas were not pregnant or nursing at the time of capture. Georgia Aquarium appealed, arguing that NMFS’s denial was arbitrary and that the educational benefits of public display outweighed the risk of adverse effects.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Totenberg, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
